Cargando…

Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

INTRODUCTION: Use of risk scores for early assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is recommended by various guidelines. We compared Cologne-WATCH (C-WATCH) score with Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS), and pre-endoscopic RS (p-RS). METHODS: Patients with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Allo, Gabriel, Bürger, Martin, Gillessen, Johannes, Kasper, Philipp, Franklin, Jeremy, Mück, Vera, Nierhoff, Dirk, Steffen, Hans-Michael, Goeser, Tobias, Schramm, Christoph
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: S. Karger AG 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9808639/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35073555
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000522121
_version_ 1784862975744540672
author Allo, Gabriel
Bürger, Martin
Gillessen, Johannes
Kasper, Philipp
Franklin, Jeremy
Mück, Vera
Nierhoff, Dirk
Steffen, Hans-Michael
Goeser, Tobias
Schramm, Christoph
author_facet Allo, Gabriel
Bürger, Martin
Gillessen, Johannes
Kasper, Philipp
Franklin, Jeremy
Mück, Vera
Nierhoff, Dirk
Steffen, Hans-Michael
Goeser, Tobias
Schramm, Christoph
author_sort Allo, Gabriel
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Use of risk scores for early assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is recommended by various guidelines. We compared Cologne-WATCH (C-WATCH) score with Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS), and pre-endoscopic RS (p-RS). METHODS: Patients with UGIB between January and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed for 30-day mortality and composite endpoints risk of complications and need for intervention using areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUROC). Subgroup analysis was conducted for patients with UGIB on admission and in-hospital UGIB. RESULTS: A total of 252 patients were identified (67.5% men, mean age 63.8 ± 14.9 years). In-hospital UGIB occurred in 49.6%. AUROCs for 30-day mortality, risk of complications, and need for intervention (not applicable to RS) were 0.684 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.606–0.763), 0.665 (95% CI: 0.594–0.735), and 0.694 (95% CI: 0.612–0.775) for C-WATCH score, 0.724 (95% CI: 0.653–0.796) and 0.751 (95% CI: 0.687–0.815) for RS, 0.652 (95% CI: 0.57–0.735), 0.653 (95% CI: 0.579–0.727), and 0.673 (95% CI: 0.602–0.745) for p-RS and 0.652 (95% CI: 0.572–0.732), 0.663 (95% CI: 0.592–0.734), and 0.752 (95% CI: 0.683–0.821) for GBS. RS outperformed pre-endoscopic scores in predicting risk of complications, while there were no significant differences between pre-endoscopic scores except GBS outperforming p-RS in predicting need for intervention. The subgroup analysis obtained similar results. Positive predictive values for patients with estimated low risk for all three endpoints (C-WATCH score ≤1, RS ≤2, p-RS <1, and GBS ≤1) were 89%, 69%, 78%, and 92%. CONCLUSION: C-WATCH score performed similar to the established pre-endoscopic risk scores in patients with UGIB regarding relevant patient-related endpoints with no significant differences between both the subgroups.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9808639
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher S. Karger AG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98086392023-01-04 Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Allo, Gabriel Bürger, Martin Gillessen, Johannes Kasper, Philipp Franklin, Jeremy Mück, Vera Nierhoff, Dirk Steffen, Hans-Michael Goeser, Tobias Schramm, Christoph Dig Dis Endoscopy and Imaging: Research Article INTRODUCTION: Use of risk scores for early assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is recommended by various guidelines. We compared Cologne-WATCH (C-WATCH) score with Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS), and pre-endoscopic RS (p-RS). METHODS: Patients with UGIB between January and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed for 30-day mortality and composite endpoints risk of complications and need for intervention using areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUROC). Subgroup analysis was conducted for patients with UGIB on admission and in-hospital UGIB. RESULTS: A total of 252 patients were identified (67.5% men, mean age 63.8 ± 14.9 years). In-hospital UGIB occurred in 49.6%. AUROCs for 30-day mortality, risk of complications, and need for intervention (not applicable to RS) were 0.684 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.606–0.763), 0.665 (95% CI: 0.594–0.735), and 0.694 (95% CI: 0.612–0.775) for C-WATCH score, 0.724 (95% CI: 0.653–0.796) and 0.751 (95% CI: 0.687–0.815) for RS, 0.652 (95% CI: 0.57–0.735), 0.653 (95% CI: 0.579–0.727), and 0.673 (95% CI: 0.602–0.745) for p-RS and 0.652 (95% CI: 0.572–0.732), 0.663 (95% CI: 0.592–0.734), and 0.752 (95% CI: 0.683–0.821) for GBS. RS outperformed pre-endoscopic scores in predicting risk of complications, while there were no significant differences between pre-endoscopic scores except GBS outperforming p-RS in predicting need for intervention. The subgroup analysis obtained similar results. Positive predictive values for patients with estimated low risk for all three endpoints (C-WATCH score ≤1, RS ≤2, p-RS <1, and GBS ≤1) were 89%, 69%, 78%, and 92%. CONCLUSION: C-WATCH score performed similar to the established pre-endoscopic risk scores in patients with UGIB regarding relevant patient-related endpoints with no significant differences between both the subgroups. S. Karger AG 2022-11 2022-01-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9808639/ /pubmed/35073555 http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000522121 Text en Copyright © 2022 by The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). Usage, derivative works and distribution are permitted provided that proper credit is given to the author and the original publisher.
spellingShingle Endoscopy and Imaging: Research Article
Allo, Gabriel
Bürger, Martin
Gillessen, Johannes
Kasper, Philipp
Franklin, Jeremy
Mück, Vera
Nierhoff, Dirk
Steffen, Hans-Michael
Goeser, Tobias
Schramm, Christoph
Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
title Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
title_full Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
title_fullStr Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
title_short Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
title_sort comparison of pre-endoscopic c-watch score with established risk assessment tools in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding
topic Endoscopy and Imaging: Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9808639/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35073555
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000522121
work_keys_str_mv AT allogabriel comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding
AT burgermartin comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding
AT gillessenjohannes comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding
AT kasperphilipp comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding
AT franklinjeremy comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding
AT muckvera comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding
AT nierhoffdirk comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding
AT steffenhansmichael comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding
AT goesertobias comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding
AT schrammchristoph comparisonofpreendoscopiccwatchscorewithestablishedriskassessmenttoolsinpatientswithuppergastrointestinalbleeding